ACBL protocol for this situation?

[rduran1216]

auction goes 1d precision, pass 3D pass 3NT. the person on lead asks the partner of the 3D bidder what 3D means, which gets a reply of i dont know.

 

What are the obligations/what is the rule associated with disclosure in this situation?

[Vampyr]

auction goes 1d precision, pass 3D pass 3NT. the person on lead asks the partner of the 3D bidder what 3D means, which gets a reply of i dont know.

 

What are the obligations/what is the rule associated with disclosure in this situation?

 

In General: You might as well start by checking whether this response is listed on the opponents' CC. If it is not, you should call the director. Often the person who didn't know will be sent away from the table, and the bidder can explain the agreement to the opponents.

 

Of course, in this particular case, it can't hurt to ask the dummy what the agreement is, since there is no longer the possibility that UI will be transmitted.

[rduran1216]

In General: You might as well start by checking whether this response is listed on the opponents' CC. If it is not, you should call the director. Often the person who didn't know will be sent away from the table, and the bidder can explain the agreement to the opponents.

 

Of course, in this particular case, it can't hurt to ask the dummy what the agreement is, since there is no longer the possibility that UI will be transmitted.

 

Is there concrete procedure for this situation?

[blackshoe]

Not sure what you mean by "concrete procedure". Law 20F deals with explanation of calls, and specifies who may ask questions, what questions they may ask, and when they may ask them. It also explains who should provide explanations (except on the instruction of the director, the partner of the player making the call). Law 40 deals with partnership understandings. It defines them and specifies that a side damaged by failure to properly disclose them is entitled to a score adjustment. Law 9 deals with irregularities, and specifies who may draw attention to them, and that when attention is drawn to them the director should be called (by any of the four players, including dummy). The ACBL General Conditions of Contest specify that players are expected to know their agreements, so "I don't know" is not adequate disclosure. It is an irregularity. Call the director. As said above, he may send "I don't know" away from the table and let the 3♦ bidder explain the meaning. Or perhaps it's written on their card (in this case, there's a check box for it), in which case if you check the card, you'll not need to call the director. If you are later damaged because the card is marked wrong, you should get an adjusted score. BTW, "damage" is defined in the laws (Law 12), and "we got a bad board" isn't enough.

 

Bottom line: incomplete or non-existant disclosure is an irregularity. When an irregularity occurs, call the director. That's really all you need to know, although it's good for players to be curious about what the laws and regulations actually say.

[kevperk]

To clarify, once the auction is over, the person who made the call has an obligation to volunteer (as per the alert procedure) any information not given (or given incorrectly) of what the partnership agreement is as to the bid in question (but not what is actually in the hand, in case of a misbid or psyche). The laws also say that the director is to be called, but unfortunately this usually doesn't happen unless the other side has an issue, which often has unintended UI problems.

 

Kevin Perkins

[pran]

To clarify, once the auction is over, the person who made the call has an obligation to volunteer (as per the alert procedure) any information not given (or given incorrectly) of what the partnership agreement is as to the bid in question (but not what is actually in the hand, in case of a misbid or psyche). The laws also say that the director is to be called, but unfortunately this usually doesn't happen unless the other side has an issue, which often has unintended UI problems.

 

Kevin Perkins

OOPS be careful!

 

This applies only to presumed declarer and his partner, not to presumed defenders.

(Defenders must delay their correction of misinformation from partner until play is completed)

[keeper2]

Yes, but in the case cited by OP, the person who made the call is presumed dummy (the question is asked by a player who "is on lead"), and so would be expected to volunteer their understanding of the partnership agreement, if there is one.

[rduran1216]

Here's the full story.

 

When the round was over, the player making the 3D bid asked whether she had to verbally tell her agreements. A well known pro player was on lead, and was belligerent about the situation, coming over to the desk and escalating it saying "She has to tell us their agreements, when the auction is over she has to tell us!"

 

Anyway it was a big bruhaha, and I could find nothing in the laws that said the partner had to verbally disclose the agreements. As I asked what I believed were routine questions to the player on lead, like "did you ask to look at their card?" "Why didn't you call the director when an irregularity occured?" There became a hailstorm of bullshit from this player, capitalized by insisting he was right and she should be reprimanded for not saying anything.

 

Anyway, was just curious about how this should have gone.

[Vampyr]

There became a hailstorm of bullshit from this player, capitalized by insisting he was right and she should be reprimanded for not saying anything.

 

Well. This "bullshit" was correct.

[blackshoe]

Browbeating the director should never be tolerated.

[Vampyr]

Browbeating the director should never be tolerated.

 

That is true, but this guy was obviously frustrated that the director did not follow proper procedure, ie instructing the player to explain her agreement, so I would not be too hard on him. He paid his entry fee and deserves competent directing.

[rduran1216]

I the director was not called to the table when the infracgion occured. This discussion took place after the round with undue emphasis on a "conspiracy against this player" which is ludicrous. I was genuinely curious about what is supposed to happen in this situation

[pran]

Yes, but in the case cited by OP, the person who made the call is presumed dummy (the question is asked by a player who "is on lead"), and so would be expected to volunteer their understanding of the partnership agreement, if there is one.

Sure, and I was aware of that.

 

But your his statement was general and that is why I wrote: OOPS be careful!

[campboy]

Sure, and I was aware of that.

 

But your statement was general and that is why I wrote: OOPS be careful!

It wasn't his statement, there are two different 7-character usernames beginning "ke" in this thread :)

[GreenMan]

I was genuinely curious about what is supposed to happen in this situation

 

"Sir, you have two choices: You can quiet down and go back to your proper seat, or you can leave. If you don't want to choose, I'll choose for you."

[PhilKing]

I'm guessing he is short. ;)

[pran]

It wasn't his statement, there are two different 7-character usernames beginning "ke" in this thread :)

Sorry :unsure: I didn't verify the usernames. B-)

[aguahombre]

I the director was not called to the table when the infracgion occured. This discussion took place after the round with undue emphasis on a "conspiracy against this player" which is ludicrous. I was genuinely curious about what is supposed to happen in this situation

Your post #8, above starts "Here is the full story.." but, it isn't really.

 

While "consiracy against this player" might not be totally accurate, there is a prevailing attitude among your club regulars which you have acknowledged in other threads. You have mentioned that the director is not normally called to the table unless there is harrassment from outsiders ---interesting, for a person who is now a director at that same club. Was it you, who started one thread a while back to complain about a prejudiced ruling against you? We noted there are several clubs in the area where they welcome outside/new players and promote fairness.

 

I don't believe there is any protocol that will fix the underlying problems.

 

edit: No, it was Dustins22 who had the prejudiced ruling there; but the ousider harrassment part was yours.

[kevperk]

OOPS be careful!

 

This applies only to presumed declarer and his partner, not to presumed defenders.

(Defenders must delay their correction of misinformation from partner until play is completed)

Yes, sorry. That is only for the declaring side. Was thinking of the given situation too much.

[rduran1216]

I look at it this way. When you are a guest somewhere, if there is a conflict or an issue there are two ways to resolve it. 1) Be polite in getting your point across and handle the situation with class. 2) Be obnoxious, condescending, etc. and hold your nose high as if your ***** doesnt stink. It is possible to be right and wrong at the same time. I like to use the analogy of this board. When I first started Phil and I would clash over every post and be condescending asswipes because its the internet and that is how people are on the internet. Once we met in person, and have played together a bunch of times, all of a sudden there is cordiality and that belligerence doesnt manifest itself in person.

 

The many issues with this individual have not been the product of protocol, more than once opponents have been outright insulted, directors have been hassled etc. It isnt that hard to be courteous and friendly, but some people just dont know how to behave properly. On this particular issue, i was more curious about the sequence of steps when the opponent says "i dont know." The explanation by the 3D bidder away from the table was that her partner was new to precision and it was possible she didn't know and the card was marked as a limit raise, so the issue of whether she must verbally set the record straight prior to the lead was my only question.

[gnasher]

On this particular issue, i was more curious about the sequence of steps when the opponent says "i dont know." The explanation by the 3D bidder away from the table was that her partner was new to precision and it was possible she didn't know and the card was marked as a limit raise, so the issue of whether she must verbally set the record straight prior to the lead was my only question.

 

If the partnership has an understanding about the sequence, she should say so; if not, she shouldn't. If there is a convention card and both partners have agreed to play what was on the card, that constitutes an understanding, regardless of whether they've actually read it. Hence, she should have disclosed what was written on the card .

 

Do these people play bridge for enjoyment?

[blackshoe]

If she doesn't know, she can't very well verbally set the record straight. That's no reason to pillory her though. Still, her opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of the agreement, and to be awarded an adjusted score if they don't get one and are thereby damaged. B-)

 

If she's being insulting or obnoxious, that's a different story, and she should be penalized for that and told to stop it.